Every now and again an issue bubbles along just under the radar of public debate. Sometimes it pops its head up for air, generating the occasional MSM opinion piece, but most of the time argument is confined to aficionados battling it out in the trade press.
Such an issue is the debate over the future shape, acquisitions and direction of Australia’s Air Force. Most Catallaxy readers would know that in 2002 Defence committed the RAAF to the F-35, better known as the Joint Strike Fighter, or JSF, recently named the Lightning II. Most readers would probably also know that the JSF is still in development, and that the closest any Australian has come to flying it is taking the JSF simulator for a spin in March last year. Defence Force Chief, Air Marshall Angus Houston, has penned paeans to the JSF, to the point where he’s staked his reputation on it. The JSF will be stealthy, the JSF will have capabilities far beyond any comparable aircraft. Most of all, the JSF will be a suitable replacement for the F-111, affectionately known in Air Force circles as ‘the Pig’.
What many readers won’t know is that a fierce argument over the JSF’s suitability for Australia’s long-term air power needs has been boiling away in the pages of the Australian Financial Review, Defence Today, and previously Australian Aviation and Heads Up Magazines. Defence has its keen supporters, but a growing chorus of critics - many of them distinguished strategists, test pilots and retired Air Force personnel - argue that Defence has made a dud choice, and that the time to back out is now, before Australia’s commitment to the JSF becomes irrevocable.
Strategist Dr Carlo Kopp, former flight test engineer Peter Goon, retired Air Cdre E J Bushell AM, retired test pilots Group Captains R G Green and M J Cottee, and the Australian Strategic Policy Institute are among Defence’s critics. They point out that the JSF is a short range aircraft, and in certain respects is actually more limited than the ‘Pig’, one of the two aircraft it is purporting to replace. Dr Dennis Jensen, a physicist and former analyist with DSTO who is now a coalition MP isn’t buying Defence’s line either.
[It's] a good aircraft but not the right one for our region. Our geography means we need long-range capability and [the F-35] doesn’t give it to us.
Jensen and Kopp also point out that since 1991, China has engaged in the largest sustained arms buying spree since the Soviet surge of the late 1970s and 1980s, buying out what amounts to the crown jewels of the Russian technology base. At the top of China’s focus has been the aim to build up a fleet of long range air superiority fighters second only to the US Air Force fleet of F-15C/E. India has gone down a similar path, and in the 2001 Cope India exercise flown between the latest US Air Force F-15C variant and Indian Su-30s, the Indians, as predicted, matched or outperformed the American F-15Cs. The F-15 is larger, more powerful and more agile than the F/A-18 or the JSF.
For many years, the F-111 provided what Kopp and Goon refer to rather inelegantly as the ‘f*** off factor’. It could fly further, faster and with a bigger payload. It was almost infinitely upgradeable. Kopp and Goon also argue that the F-111 need not be written off so hastily, and have come up with a range of detailed, cost effective ways to keep it in the air.
Their core recommendation, however, is for Australia to purchase the F-111’s successor, the F-22A Raptor. As much as he doesn’t like to give ground, even then Air Marshal Houston conceded that the F-22
Will be the most outstanding fighter aircraft ever built … Every fighter pilot in the Air Force would dearly love to fly it.
The F-22A in action
This amazing plane has supersonic cruise, allowing it to fly at up to 50,000 feet at prolonged and extraordinary speed, placing it out of reach of surface-to-air missiles, untouchable in air-to-air combat and able to release satellite-guided “smart” bombs and missiles at undetectable range. Its stealth - ability to evade radar detection - is unparalleled and will not be matched by the JSF. To top it off, the F-22 is already in service. As more are built its unit cost is coming down, while the JSF is facing a budget blowout and Congressional criticism for its radical design, deemed ‘dangerously unproven’.
The debate has inspired a parliamentary inquiry - the Inquiry into Australian Defence Force Regional Air Superiority, in which defence critics were prominent. Kopp and Goon have founded the Air Power Australia think tank, a central locus for detailed air warfare research material. MP Dennis Jensen has been working to catch Dr Nelson’s ear since his tenure as Defence Minister commenced. Kopp - an engineer, computer scientist and Monash Asia Institute Fellow as well as a former stunt pilot - seems to write much of the Australian Financial Review’s Defence Specials these days.
The issue is a large one. John Howard has positioned Australia regionally as a somewhat bellicose player, but our capability in the crucial area of air power is slipping. Even libertarians concede that defence is one thing the state has to get right.
What gives?
UPDATE: Air Vice Marshal Peter Criss, ret has added his thoughts on this topic in the latest Defence Industry Daily.
165 Comments
Hmm. Well, all defence dabblers have their favourite bits of hardware. Remember that the purchase of the F-111 fleet was itself hugely controversial. The Collins class subs have as many supporters as detractors. While I don’t dispute the potential for Defence to have got this wrong, given their record, this is a really hard one for non-experts. The F-22A sounds really sexy, but Defence has to determine if our strategic needs over the life of the aircraft are best met by such an aircraft with such capabilities given the anticipated threat environment. Who are we likely to be up against and what are their capabilities, are the questions the serving experts have to ask, and fit the hardware to meet the anticipated need.
Have any of these issues been raised with officials?
are there any answers offered?
Are you sure our version will only be a short range capability?
Maybe that’s all we need as we come under the US nuke umbrella so we may not require long range . There is also the need to graft easily to Us defense capabilities in the foreseeable future.
Jsut questions.
The 22 does look neat though. It really has the F…. Factor.
That’s exactly right, jc. Defence strategists have to think about what we will be asked to do, whether we have the operational lead, whether we will operate in coalition under US command. Like, are we ever likely to engage the PRC air force on our own, and need aircraft capable of matching them? Not very likely, I’d say.
And there’s a big debate about what an Australian Air Force should really be configured for. For aerial combat, or surveillance and intelligence collection? It’s been mooted in the past that we should be investing in AWACS platforms at the expense of combat aircraft.
Big issues, and big debates. I hate to say it, but this is one best left to government.
If the joint strike fighter is a short-range fighter….. is it SUPERIOR over that short range?
Though we have to operate as part of a team that is not necessarily what we ought to prepare for.
Its possible to prepare to act alone yet still have enough to be able to act with the team.
Because when we act with the team our own survival isn’t threatened. But when we act alone it could be.
So we build things up as if we are alone in a cold war with the Chi-Coms.
And then we are still likely to have what it takes to hold up our end of the alliance.
“First, we need to buy the 400 F-22 fighters the service says it must have to assure future air dominance, because without command of the air, you can’t do much else in modern warfare.
If we have to give up 600 of the less capable Joint Strike Fighters the Air Force is planning to buy to get enough F-22’s, then that’s what we should do. ”
So sayeth Loren Thompson of the Lexington institute.
This makes me think that Skeptic is right. If we are jointly developing this other thing it seems a bit churlish to pull out of the deal when things go a little wrong.
But here we see we might be doing our friends a favour. Because it might push the Americans to drop the second-best option and invest more in the Raptor.
And the more Raptors we buy the cheaper it is per-unit for the Americans.
Sometimes these things can amount to an investment in top-guy-ego. I’m sure it can break your heart and hurt whole constituencies when a weapons system is trashed.
But if the Raptors what we need to be able to eyeball the mainlanders then we ought to push our ally in that direction.
That’s my view, GMB. Australia is going to be in a tight spot between allies and major trading partners over Taiwan. It pays to be prickly enough so we can steer our own course. Ye ol ‘air-sea gap’ ain’t gonna save us forever.
Excellent post, SL. I wrote something on this briefly in July. Rob is right - the F111 (we all love it) was very controversial. Labor, with the limitless vision that only Opposition allows, has also criticised the JSF and says the F-22 is the way to go for Australia. The US Congress, however, doesn’t seem to be open to the idea of selling it to foreigners - not even allies. This reticence has, I think, been confirmed again (that link via Wiki). If they can’t even be purchased, what’s the debate about? Anyone know any more on this?
With any sort of luck either Dr Jensen or Dr Kopp will be stopping by to answer your questions CL!
We have to be realistic. Australia is not a major military power and it’s never going to be able to go toe-to-toe with the Chinese - which is. The Defence dollar has to be spent where it does the most good, and it’s not on raw air power or some dream of regional air superiority. Australia has to rely on its strategic alliances — mainly with the US — to achieve force projection in support of our national interests and security beyond our immediate region. That is our major strategic strength, and one well recognised by our neighbours and potential adversaries. The major issue we will have with Taiwan is that if the US weighs in on Taiwan’s side in a military blowup in the Taiwan Straits, then Australia for maybe the first time will not deploy against the PRC alongside the US, as it is not in its strategic interests to do so.
Military aficionados always get intoxicated by sexy hardware and always want the best, fastest and strongest. But that is not necessarily what Australia actually needs to support its strategic objectives.
“First, the F/A-22 Raptor fighter, which despite all its bad press is indispensable to preserving global air dominance.
People who aren’t pilots sometimes assert that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter would be just as good, but I can’t find anyone in the Air Force who feels that way.
In fact, in behind the scenes discussions last year, the Air Force offered to give up 600 Joint Strike Fighters just to get 200 more Raptors.
I think that’s a deal that policymakers ought to take, because despite its stealth and information technologies, the JSF simply can’t match Raptor in speed and maneuverability — things likely to matter when you’re trying to outrun next-generation SAM’s.”
More from Loren Thompson.
http://lexingtoninstitute.org/701.shtml
It looks to me like its just the holding on tight you get when billions have already been spent.
Even if the other guy knows that he can beat you in a war of attrition being able to convince him he’ll be utterly humiliated in the initial engagements can be useful for ones safety.
And Chinas not insurmountable if Taiwan is free and confident. She has to worry about both Taiwan and Japan and in a long drawn-out scrap everyone who is afraid of a big power then starts aiding its enemies when they are temporarily unafraid.
So we can make a few moves and hold our head up.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
We always expect that our top guys know what they are doing.
But people are only human and that much money already having been spent means that folks likely can’t let go.
This is where we need your help Skeptic. Put your arm around these tearful airforce guys who wanted the JSF and tell them “It will be alright. Time heals everything”
So thats what we need to find out. Is it the agonising sunk cost that is getting between us and Gods wil?
Is it the money already spent that is getting between us and our rightful Raptors?
It need be no hard feelings and stuff. But they’ve just got to let it go. Just let it go.
A few rides on the Raptor and how quickly they’ll forget.
Catallaxy have produced an excellent summary of the debate - well done!
More reading for the interested:
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/adfair/subs/sub20.pdf
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/adfair/subs/sub21.pdf
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/adfair/subs/sub22.pdf
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/adfair/subs/sub29.pdf
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/adfair/subs/sub32.pdf
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/adfair/subs/sub34.pdf
http://www.ausairpower.net/raptor.html
http://www.ausairpower.net/raptor-ex.html
http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html
Carlo
“We have to be realistic. Australia is not a major military power and it’s never going to be able to go toe-to-toe with the Chinese - which is.”
The aren’t that tough yet.
And we don’t need to defend ourselves against weak people. Or at least thats no big problem. And with the overkill we gain from deterring China we have the capacity to deal with anything that comes along.
Come on, GMB, under no conceivable strategic scenario would Australia ever go to war with China on its own. To budget and equip against that contingency would be insane.
Responding to 1. Rob | October 31st, 2006 at 7:27 pm
Unfortunately Defence never performed the required analysis of regional capabilities, projected regional capabilities, and what RAAF force structure would be required to deal with these capabilities.
APA did this work in 2001 as part of the due diligence on our proposal for acquiring the F-22A. This was based on some of my earlier work which went in as a ministerial submission in 1998.
Refer http://www.ausairpower.net/nf-98-print.pdf
In hindsight, my projection in 1998 underestimated just how many advanced Sukhoi fighters and smart weapons would appear in the region.
The decision to go for the JSF was the product of internal bureaucratic politics in Defence, with most of the key players having since jumped ship. All saw the JSF as an opportunity to advance themselves in the bureaucracy.
The AIR 6000 project which was in the early phases of a rigorous analysis of needs and alternatives got chopped off at the knees. The F-22A/F-111 option advocated by APA was one of the options under analysis, and was to have been shortlisted.
Former Minister Hill, rather than performing his governance function and holding the bureaucracy back, jumped on the bandwagon and became one of the loudest JSF advocates.
All of the problems we see today with the JSF and its unsuitability for the region were identified in 1998 and today we are simply seeing identified risks and limitations materialising.
It’s not just the Chinese and the Indians, Rob. The Indonesians have been buying Sukhois as well.
jc | October 31st, 2006 at 7:31 pm
> Have any of these issues been raised with officials?
Many times. The answers are usually full of factual errors and condescending in tone and posture.
> are there any answers offered?
The answer is always ‘We [Defence] are right and APA et al are wrong’
No attempt is ever made to provide evidence or reasoning to support the Defence position.
> Are you sure our version will only be a short range capability?
The JSF carries half the weapon payload of an F-111 to half the distance. In effect you require two JSFs and one aerial refuelling tanker to do the job of a single F-111.
> Maybe that’s all we need as we come under the US nuke umbrella so we may not require long range . There is also the need to graft easily to Us defense capabilities in the foreseeable future.
One thing the last 50 years has taught us is that the contingencies which arise are seldom the contigencies anticipated. Prudent military planners go for flexibility. The F-22 is flexible, it can do many jobs superlatively, the JSF is not, it is built to chase enemy tanks on the battlefield, and underperforms in more demanding roles.
“Come on, GMB, under no conceivable strategic scenario would Australia ever go to war with China on its own. To budget and equip against that contingency would be insane.”
Conceptually you’ve got it totally wrong.
We aren’t trying to take over countries are we?
I mean we have an whole continent to ourselves.
So we don’t need to worry about people we can beat up.
Its BECAUSE we can’t beat up China that we have to worry about them. And not the other guys.
So we prepare as best we can.
You see conceptually you’ve got things totally the wrong way around.
Fair enough on the primacy of alliances, Rob. But this admittedly inexpert civilian - aka “me” - likes the idea that a low population, first-world nation like Australia should invest big-time in air power. Should it come to a Taiwan meltdown, I wouldn’t casually assume that Canberra will give Washington the cold-shoulder for Beijing. Depending on the situation, it might be reckless to promote that as military doctrine. Shouldn’t we therefore strive to be a big regional contributor to any likely Pacific melodrama? Shouldn’t we avoid the Kiwi Option - that is, opting out of military responsibilities and banking on the Yanks?
APA-Carlo:
What’s the situation with the US Congress and the availability of the Raptor for purchase?
Welcome back, Rob, btw.
Carlo:
Why the need to project far though, when you can achieve the desired result with air bridges as the Americans proved?
Maybe mid air refueling takes care of long distance projection while the benefits of short range fire power outweighs the disadvantages that can be solved with an air bridge.
Long range just becomes short range with airbridge capabilities. Let’s face it, we’re not going to attack china unless we have big brother on side. In this situation we just incoporate ourselves in their AWAC system.
Am I on the right track here?
We need to be ABLE to attack someone who is stronger then us to be able to stop them from thinking too much about attacking us.
You can’t deter agression by defense alone.
Thats almost an iron law. We want missile defense and to be unbeatable on our turf.
But you single to the big boys that you can’t hit them where they live and they’ll be outside your walls burning all your olives every summer.
Bird, that’s the reason the F111 was purchased originally, right - to reach Jakarta?
To even so much as have the resolve necessary to deal with threats we need to feel secure against our greatest threat.
We need to be able to act with real resolve and not have our negotiators go weak at the knees.
When we do joint work with America we don’t fear for our own territory.
So thats not where our conceptual focus ought to be.
If we cannot deal with China we cannot stop our guys from appeasing her.
She’s got more borders then anyone else in this world. We don’t need to be afraid.
She has many adversaries to worry about. We worry about her. We don’t need to worry about anyone else since we’ll have surplus capacity to deal with anyone else.
Been a while since I was really into this kind of stuff so all the hard-core experts shoudl feel free to jump in…
but…
being a little controversial here, could we realistically have considered a Sukhoi or MiG ourselves? If the JSF is going to be outragouesly priced and totally unproven.. and the Raptor perhaps not available for purchase… could we get “bang-for-buck” from something pour of the Russian factories.
Going against this of course is going to be compatability when it comes to working with the US… and of course the politics of buying off a former enemy rathe than our Big brothers in the US of A.
…just being a little provactive…
3. Rob | October 31st, 2006 at 7:37 pm
> That’s exactly right, jc. Defence strategists have to think about what we will be asked to do, whether we have the operational lead, whether we will operate in coalition under US command. Like, are we ever likely to engage the PRC air force on our own, and need aircraft capable of matching them? Not very likely, I’d say.
> And there’s a big debate about what an Australian Air Force should really be configured for. For aerial combat, or surveillance and intelligence collection? It’s been mooted in the past that we should be investing in AWACS platforms at the expense of combat aircraft.
Big issues, and big debates. I hate to say it, but this is one best left to government.
Good points - observations:
A.With JSF Australia will always be dependent on the US Air Force to provide a protective umbrella of F-22s in any contigency other than the trivial. This is the great weakness of the JSF, as it was designed to supplement the F-22 in US service. It is not a fighter as most people understand it, but rather a small bomber, akin to the Vietnam era F-105D and A-7D strike fighters. If Australia wants to lead an operation or operate independently, then it needs a fighter capable of dominating the battlespace. The only fighter in the market like this is the F-22, which both Japan and Israel have lobbied for.
B.The future force structure? There are two schools of thought. One is to have a mix of assets capable of covering a wide range of contigencies, eg F-22, upgraded F-111, more AWACS, tanker/transports etc. This is the APA position. Then there is the Defence position which is designed to justify the JSF. It envisages a very narrow range of contigencies and pretends other contigencies will never arise.
C.’I hate to say it, but this is one best left to government. ‘ True, but only if the government’s machinery of state is functional. Unfortunately the Defence bureaucracy is dysfunctional and has lost the capability to analytically understand and solve such problems.
I say we forget about the aircraft and the fuckin’ US Alliance and instead develop a nuclear arsenal.
We could test the nukes at Maralinga and use fuck-knuckles like Graeme Bird and Joe Cambria as test dummies.
I call this the Cactus Green Defence Strategy.
“Bird, that’s the reason the F111 was purchased originally, right - to reach Jakarta?”
They may have been thinking more generally.
This is going to be a tougher world this century. We won’t necessarily have America to go all over the world and bleed everywhere.
If we can hold our head up against China and have a policy of punishing terrorist regimes before we find out the specifics of a terrorist attack you might find these Bali attacks are a yesterday thing also.
If we’ve got the latest gear the Americans have to back us up just to stop others from getting hold of her technology.
You’re not being very ethical there Munn.
We need full spectrum capacities in any case.
Steve, I’ll start sooning
I know you can write great stuff if you feel like it.
4. GMB | October 31st, 2006 at 7:42 pm
‘If the joint strike fighter is a short-range fighter….. is it SUPERIOR over that short range?’
Unfortunately not. The JSF is inferior to the F-22 in all cardinal parameters, and inferior to the F-111 in all aerodynamic parameters.
More detail in http://www.ausairpower.net/0830-ASPI-Rebuttal-HR.pdf
Suppose you are commander-in-chief Heath.
You going to send our boys up in the air in a flying-fucking outhouse.
We want them to beat all comers, hit their targets and get home safely.
A government is there to keep its people safe. Including the pilots.
And we need to be able to act with some daring. If we get to where we are too scared to act then we have failed.
We have to have the best. Or we are letting our boys down.
I hate to sound boring but what is the point of a JSF vs. Raptor debate if the Raptor isn’t for sale?
Well that tears it Carlo.
Is there anything we can do to assist you in your efforts?
‘Flying fucking outhouse’
Another great coinage Graeme. Can I borrow it?
5. GMB | October 31st, 2006 at 7:46 pm
‘Its possible to prepare to act alone yet still have enough to be able to act with the team.
Because when we act with the team our own survival isn’t threatened. But when we act alone it could be.
So we build things up as if we are alone in a cold war with the Chi-Coms.
And then we are still likely to have what it takes to hold up our end of the alliance. ‘
Agreed 100%. The direction Defence are taking us in make us a liability to the US in any regional contigency, and make us a target for coercion by the PRC or anybody else who might develop such an inclination at a future date.
Unless Australia can indepedently hold its ground - and deter bullying by regional nations - Australia will invite bullying.
GMB (32),
As per previous post.. playing devils advocate here.
If we save a bucket of money by purchasing a capable but more cost effective aircraft, we could potentially buy more aircraft, or spend it on some other form of complementary asset.
Fsssscht, let me just get past the disdain I feel for libertarians who get all horny about billion-dollar flying gun platforms but morally object to PBS which might lengthen poor people’s lives. Ahem.
Air power is vastly overrated in modern war planning, especially when a very large rather rich country can, as Australia can, trade space and time for the chance to knock out opposing forces, or more efficiently, just buy them off. Let me introduce you to the reasons “air superiority” doesn’t necessarily involve buying shit from overpaid US contractors:
Stuff the F-22 and the JSF. If you all want to buy expensive explosive stuff, buy unpiloted aircraft (UAVs), clever mobile radars and a whole lot of cheap missiles.
“I hate to sound boring but what is the point of a JSF vs. Raptor debate if the Raptor isn’t for sale?”
That sounds like some bureaucrats dispute.
Look at Howard. The man bestrides the diplomatic world like a collosus.
If we are willing to buy enough of these cash-strapped America will help us out.
Howards big with the Americans. He is the MAN-OF-STEAL.
He will get us our Raptors.
For it is surely Gods will that he does.
Liam.
You are an idiot.
You have no idea.
Good summary skeptic lawyer. I had a letter on this subject published in the Sydney Morning Herald on 19 Nov 2004 (Air Defence is a Priority).
The foundation of Australian defence is control of the air, and that’s what the JSF decision sacrifices. As Kopp points out so thoroughly. It’s always annoyed me that Howard didn’t seem to understand this in the East Timor conflict.
I think the RAAF decided to support the JSF because JSF squadrons are more likely to see active service alongside US forces, which is a big plus for career pilots.
The US reserves crucial air control roles for its own squadrons, so would be unlikely to use any Australian F-22 squadrons. On the other hand it’s happy to give battlefield strike missions to Allied forces, and those are the type of roles the US would allocate to JSF squadrons.
The whole scenario presumes Australia will rely on US fighters in the event of serious threats in our region.
The RAAF argues that networking with AWACS will overcome the relative deficiencies of the JSF in conflict, but that seems a weak argument. The other side will probably be networked too.
Re Cope India, the significance of that is open to discussion. As I understand it, the American F-15s were restricted to using their own radars, whereas the Indian forces used AWACs.
But Heath we have precedent for this.
A couple of the old stealth fighters do the work of twenty heritage fighters.
And conceptually we are not going up against Afghanistan. Because we don’t fear third-world powers and we have no territorial designs on them.
So our guys have to be able to win and not get killed and maintain air superiority and hit what they aim at.
No chance. The new stuff can get more done when matters get serious. And we do not need to defend ourselves against weak foreign forces. Only strong foreign forces.
Whilst we’re debating expensive military hardware purchases…how do people feel about the M1 purchase?
No doubt the M1 is a beast of a tank… but it’s an incredible gas guzzler. Do we really want to be trying to operate such a fuel hog?
munn behave your self please. enough clowning for the day.
CL
We could buy anything we want from the US at the moment is my guess. they have argued for integration so they shouldn’t have a problem if we chose something else. Don’t you think?
Can we break the contract if there is oone, CL? My guess would be that the public servants types would be very reluctant to admit a mistake.
Carlo.
What’s the price differnetial?
Kim Beazley supports acquiring the F-22, Liam. And I think even most righties agree that the Beazer knew his way round the defence portfolio.
C.L. | October 31st, 2006 at 8:28 pm
‘Excellent post, SL. I wrote something on this briefly in July. Rob is right - the F111 (we all love it) was very controversial. Labor, with the limitless vision that only Opposition allows, has also criticised the JSF and says the F-22 is the way to go for Australia. The US Congress, however, doesn’t seem to be open to the idea of selling it to foreigners - not even allies. This reticence has, I think, been confirmed again (that link via Wiki). If they can’t even be purchased, what’s the debate about? Anyone know any more on this? ‘
The US position on the export of the F-22 is more complex than the media would have us believe.
In 2000 the US Air Force commissioned a study on the export of the F-22: https://research.maxwell.af.mil/papers/ay2000/saas/molloy.pdf
The study concluded that only Australia, Britain and Canada could be trusted to have the F-22.
During that period the US Air Force assessed Australia (at considerable cost in research studies) and concluded that an F-22 with full US capabilities could be exported to Australia, with some features locked and available only in time of war.
The US have a complex system in which export of top end technology like the F-22 hse to be assessed in detail and then recommendations made to the administration and Congress. Then Congress approves the export.
General export approvals are usually only granted apriori for non critical military technology.
As Defence have refused to approach the US DoD for a formal assessment, claims that Australia would not get the F-22 are simply the opinion of Defence bureaucrats, or interpretations of comments made by vendor personnel.
Liame
it’s 10.30. Please go to bed. you have pre-school in the morning.
Carlo.
Do you perceive any China-appeasement operating in this matter?
AWACs are always a huge help, Tony - something else the APA has pointed out repeatedly. Even so, the quality of the Sukhoi as flown by the Indians in that exercise was still outstanding.
CL, that is exactly right. The ability to reach Jakarta and take out any target there was an important factor in the role of the F-111 and Australian defence. That also meant most Indonesian military bases were vulnerable in the event of any serious attacks on our forces.
The F-111s and the SAS are deadly. Everyone who needs to, knows that.
Thanks Carlo. Interesting.
Kim Beazley loves his guns, but he’s a Cold War warrior.
Look, you can imagine fighting China or Indonesia all you like, but it’s the piss-ant little non-State actors with whom the ADF is going to be fighting in the forseeable future. Is the F22 much use against an anti-Western insurgency in [name your country in SE Asia]? Hardly. It’d be flying from aircraft carriers we don’t have, dropping million-dollar bombs we don’t own, on shacks built for fractions of the price. The Army, on the other hand has just bought a bunch of Tiger helicopters for close air support of troops—now that makes a bit of sense.
Regarding the M1A1 tank, it’s complicated. Obviously it’s designed to ‘integrate’ with the US, but it’s also wonderful for destroying stuff that can’t be destroyed by infantry. I don’t think it was a wise purchase, but I can see the arguments in favour.
Basically, Defence has to ask the US for the F-22. Because Defence has become so bound up with the JSF, they’ve never asked. This is then construed as though the US hasn’t made it available.
I didn’t know that Australia was one of the few countries the US would trust with the airframe.
Laime
Please go to bed. I won’t say it again. Next time its the wooden spoon.
10. Rob | October 31st, 2006 at 8:30 pm
‘The Defence dollar has to be spent where it does the most good, and it’s not on raw air power or some dream of regional air superiority. Australia has to rely on its strategic alliances — mainly with the US — to achieve force projection in support of our national interests and security beyond our immediate region. That is our major strategic strength, and one well recognised by our neighbours and potential adversaries. The major issue we will have with Taiwan is that if the US weighs in on Taiwan’s side in a military blowup in the Taiwan Straits, then Australia for maybe the first time will not deploy against the PRC alongside the US, as it is not in its strategic interests to do so.
Military aficionados always get intoxicated by sexy hardware and always want the best, fastest and strongest. But that is not necessarily what Australia actually needs to support its strategic objectives. ‘
This argument is predictaed on the assumption that the F-22 or F-22/F-111 mix is more expensive than the JSF solution.
The assumption does not hold. This is for two reasons:
A.Defence need to buy JSFs early in the production cycle and this makes them similar in unit procurement costs to the F-22. There is plenty of evidence in Congressional reporting to prove this.
B.Because the JSF is much less capable, more of them need to be used to get the same amount of work done, and many more supporting aerial refuelling tankers are needed.
Australia can have its cake and eat it too, if we opt for the F-22.
11. GMB | October 31st, 2006 at 8:30 pm
‘Is it the money already spent that is getting between us and our rightful Raptors?
It need be no hard feelings and stuff. But they’ve just got to let it go. Just let it go.’
You got it. The principal reason why Defence are clinging to the JSF is face saving, since they lost the public and professional debate completely. The Inquiry submissions show this convincingly.
The issue is now largely about preserving reputations and not looking stupid in the press.
My understanding, too, is that the JSF is a bit like the 8m bridge Beattie built across the Brisbane River. It finished up at 23m it went so far over budget, and isn’t even much good. At least with the F-22 we have a good idea of how much we’re up for.
And Liam, I think you’ll find quality airpower is pretty crucial in modern war.
14. Rob | October 31st, 2006 at 8:42 pm
‘Come on, GMB, under no conceivable strategic scenario would Australia ever go to war with China on its own. To budget and equip against that contingency would be insane. ‘
Actually it is cheaper than you might imagine. Don’t forget that the PLA’s ability to project air power over long distances is limited.
You simply buy enough to make it too expensive for the PLA to attempt projecting power into our patch.
This is detailed in http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/adfair/subs/sub20.pdf
Stealthy airpower? I think not. From what I read from the American experience these days the F-16s, F-18s, A-10s and close-support helicopters do most of the important work, except in imaginary table wars against enemies who’re never actually going to be fighting anythin worthwhile. China’s biggest enemy is poverty and limits on growth, not other countries.
Wait, did I just say F-18? A plane flown by Australia to great success in almost every recent conflict? Naaaah. Past my bedtime, obviously.
I do support airpower, incidentally. I’d love to see Australia fielding an airforce of very cool planes without any pilots in them.
Well I’m convinced, prima facie. Let’s ditch the F-35 cropduster and go after the beautiful Raptor.
BUT, there does seem to be a Congressional hurdle - quite aside from DoD and ADF papers and pride. Would a Democrat-controlled Congress be sympathetic?
And what’s the point of no return with this? When are we so far into the F-35 and so far out of the loop with the F-22, that we get lumbered with the Lightning?
21. jc | October 31st, 2006 at 8:54 pm
“Why the need to project far though, when you can achieve the desired result with air bridges as the Americans proved?
Maybe mid air refueling takes care of long distance projection while the benefits of short range fire power outweighs the disadvantages that can be solved with an air bridge.
Long range just becomes short range with airbridge capabilities. Let’s face it, we’re not going to attack china unless we have big brother on side. In this situation we just incoporate ourselves in their AWAC system.
Am I on the right track here? ”
Not sure I entirely understand your argument here.
A.Aerial refuelling allows you to project over huge distances. The US clobbered Libya using F-111s and tankers out of the UK, 3,500 nautical miles away. This is the model Australia should be pursuing.
B.Aerial refuelling also provides persistence for fighter patrols, allowing jets which have an endurance on internal fuel of 3 hours to stay airborne for as long as the pilot can last, or weapons payload lasts (they use piddle bags …).
C.To achieve the reach and persistence needed, you have to invest in tanker aircraft. Typically one tanker per four fighters.
The problem is that the Defence bureaucracy does not believe in tankers and has committed investment for about 25% of what Australia actually needs. The cheaper APA proposal for adequate tanking capacity was ignored:
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-2005-02.pdf
25. HeathG | October 31st, 2006 at 9:05 pm
‘being a little controversial here, could we realistically have considered a Sukhoi or MiG ourselves? If the JSF is going to be outragouesly priced and totally unproven.. and the Raptor perhaps not available for purchase… could we get “bang-for-buck†from something pour of the Russian factories.’
Every so many months I get an email from somebody asking this.
APA FAQ Answer:
Why wouldn’t Australia acquire Russian Sukhois?
Would you purchase your most critical weapons system from a nation which is supplying much larger numbers of the same product to your potential opponents? In any regional crisis, there would be a genuine risk that Russia would be forced to make a commercial decision and favour the larger client in the supply of spare parts and materiel, and Australia would be one of the smaller Asia-Pacific buyers of the Sukhoi. Accepting such an implicit conflict of interest is not a sound strategy. Other more pragmatic problems also arise. Operating the same system as an opponent means that you can compete only in pilot skills and numbers, with numbers being more important in long range missile combat. Australia is not in the position to compete in numbers long term against any regional nation. Another problem is compatibility with US datalinks, electronic warfare equipment, and weapons, required for coalition operations. Integrating such equipment with the systems and software in the Sukhois would present genuine difficulties as neither the US or Russia would be happy for each others’ defence contractors to gain intimate access to such key technologies.
http://www.ausairpower.net/APA-FAQ-2005.html
Laime
That toy plane you and your daddy fly in the park is a cool machine but not just ready to compete with pilots.. Not just yet. look we’ll wake you up when the techology is ready. Now go to bed, you little shit, before I whack the crap out you.
Carlo
comment 61…. that’s great thanks.
I meant that we could use air bridges with the shorter capbaility plane. But all this was answered.
As to point C… Really? Are they mad?
JC, play nice with Liam. He got chased away from the Allende thread by a couple of nasty righties…
Ok SL.
It’s just that I think he’s too young to be playing in this thread and his parents asked us to take care of him.
Sorry.
34. GMB | October 31st, 2006 at 9:13 pm
‘Well that tears it Carlo.
Is there anything we can do to assist you in your efforts? ‘
Plenty. Email me at webmaster@ausairpower.net
Thanks for the condescension, skepticlawyer, save it.
I didn’t want to dignify any more that ceremonial sucking-off of dictators and torturers, but that’s besides the point. Let’s talk fun stuff whot flies.
…
JC, so you believe that UAVs are
Depends if you’re driving a cheap car with a couple of mates with guns, the military vehicle of choice of Australia’s likely enemies in the next twenty years. The RQ-4A Global Hawk, which Australia is already buying, will spot them nicely, and the RQ-1 Predator will do fine destroying them.
Laime
Please. They are great craft even as good as the one you fly with you dad in the park, but they’re just not as capable as a top of the line fighter craft.
They also do neat tricks, but they’re just not there….. yet. So give it a little time and they will catch. In 15 years or so maybe when you’re 17 1/2.
Carlo’s just pushing a barrow.
I’m with Liam on this. Anyone who thinks that Australia’s security is down to military hardware is seriously wrong. It depends above all on strategic alliances and co-operative agreements with friendly or at the least non-adversarial regional powers. Australia will never even be able to defend its own coastline — it is simply too vast. Indonesia is often — wrongly — touted as our most likely regional adversary. That’s baloney. Our issue with Indonesia will be strategic, not military. We need to make Indonesia our friend and ourselves be a better friend of Indonesia, not least by assuring them that we do not support fragmentation of the Indonesian nation state along the lines proposed by fools like Scott Burchill. Like I said, strategic. Get that right and it won’t matter two hoots who’s got the bigger stuff in their pants.
Of course we need a competent and combat-ready ADF, but not to take on the Indonesians or the Chinese. We need tactically mobile ground forces to support peace-keeping and intervention operations — and state-preservation operations, a la Solomon Islands and East Timor. In our own region we have to do it on our own - the US expects it of us - so we have to budget for that. In the bigger conflicts we will always be working in coalitions with more powerful partners. It’s poor policy to invest in capabilities for ourselves that we can gain by leveraging our alliances.
It’s absurd, IMHO, to talk in terms of ‘they’re there so they must be a threat an therefore we must outgun them’. In the hugely unlikely event that Indonesia ever contemplated an armed attack on Australia our best defence is not hardware but the A(NZ)US alliance.
Don’t take my word for the effectiveness of cheap missiles and UAVs, Joe: take Hezbollah’s.
Was it a missile or a drone? There are/were four sailors who don’t care very much.
41. Tony Healy | October 31st, 2006 at 9:20 pm
“Re Cope India, the significance of that is open to discussion. As I understand it, the American F-15s were restricted to using their own radars, whereas the Indian forces used AWACs.”
Actually neither side had AWACS, since India’s A-50Is are still being constructed in Israel.
The Sukhois won since they had longer ranging radars, longer ranging missiles, and they were networked using a Russian TKS-2 system.
48. GMB | October 31st, 2006 at 9:24 pm
“Do you perceive any China-appeasement operating in this matter?”
There is no evidence to prove this. However, China’s growing capability is completely absent in all public strategy documents produced by Defence.
I don’t think Carlo has suggested at any point (and nor have I) that we will one day be taking on the Indonesians or the Chinese. We do, however, need to project power in the region - a very different thing. The F-111 gave us this projection; its successor needs to do the same.
Carlo
re comment 73
you think that part about China is simply classified so as not to offend them, or these whackers just idioits?
64. jc | October 31st, 2006 at 9:59 pm
“As to point C… Really? Are they mad? ”
We in the analytical community often ask this question.
The problem is that below some threshold level of technical and strategic literacy, the obvious is no longer obvious. The result are decisions and actions which are not rational in a larger frame of reference, although the party acting in that manner might imagine themselves to be perfectly rational.
How do you then define mad?
Who is the ‘we in the analytical community’ that you’re talking about, Carlo? And do you get paid to make decisions for the government?
“You simply buy enough to make it too expensive for the PLA to attempt projecting power into our patch.”
So we can ’simply’ outspend the fastest growing economy in the world in arms acquisition? I don’t think so.
.Liame
FFS, If Isreal wished to, they could have razed southern Leb in a few weeks. The trusty daisy cutters would have cleaned it all up so the bitumen could go in the following week, followed by the parking meters.
The rocket attacks hurt, but we know who won even in a war where the Israelis were forced to limit enemy causalities.
Stop getting your war stories off the socialist worker. It pays to be widely read, Laime. You nimbus.
Re Cope India, Carlo, thanks, networking not AWACS. The point was that the American F-15s were artificially restricted compared to the Indian planes, as I understand it. Is that what happened?
And the context was that this was a political manouver to encourage US Congress to be generous in funding F-22s for the USAF. Do you know anythng about that?
It’s not how much you spend Rob, it’s how smart. We have a limited budget, and I think we can get ‘more bang for our buck’ by spending wisely.
No Rob
We don’t and can’t outspend them.
What we do is that we make it so costly it is just not worth it.
70. Rob | October 31st, 2006 at 10:32 pm
“Carlo’s just pushing a barrow.”
Mmmm. Over the last ten years I have been accussed of this every time I get into a debate. I have been accussed of working for Boeing, working for Lockheed-Martin, working for Sukhoi, working for the US Govt, working for Defence, basically anybody who might stand to benefit from the point I have been arguing.
My agenda has always been national interest first. If you invest the time to do some reading on APA you will find my work dating abck to 1980, and the barrow is always the same one - national interest first.
If you are concerned about people pushing barrows, look closely at Defence in this very polarised debate. Their agenda has always been to protect their turf and monopoly on strategic policy development in Australia. Damn the consequences.
“I’m with Liam on this. Anyone who thinks that Australia’s security is down to military hardware is seriously wrong. It depends above all on strategic alliances and co-operative agreements with friendly or at the least non-adversarial regional powers. Australia will never even be able to defend its own coastline — it is simply too vast. Indonesia is often — wrongly — touted as our most likely regional adversary. That’s baloney. Our issue with Indonesia will be strategic, not military. We need to make Indonesia our friend and ourselves be a better friend of Indonesia, not least by assuring them that we do not support fragmentation of the Indonesian nation state along the lines proposed by fools like Scott Burchill. Like I said, strategic. Get that right and it won’t matter two hoots who’s got the bigger stuff in their pants.”
Hardware is a prerequisite to maintaining a strategic position. Think of it as having the right chess pieces in the right places on the board. Try playing a chess game without bishops, rooks, or a queen.
Strategy is about denying other nations opportunities to mess with you to their advantage.
Force structure and hardware determines what games you can and cannot win, and thus what opportunities you are taking away from other players.
“Of course we need a competent and combat-ready ADF, but not to take on the Indonesians or the Chinese. We need tactically mobile ground forces to support peace-keeping and intervention operations — and state-preservation operations, a la Solomon Islands and East Timor. In our own region we have to do it on our own - the US expects it of us - so we have to budget for that. In the bigger conflicts we will always be working in coalitions with more powerful partners. It’s poor policy to invest in capabilities for ourselves that we can gain by leveraging our alliances.”
Alliances are great providing that your partners can be relied upon every time, and providing that your partners have the capability to intervene on your behalf.
The US are in genuine difficulty with strategic overstretch and it is hurting their ability to maintain their strategic position, especially in the Asia-Pacific.
If we add to their burdens we will cause them pain. That is not a good precondition for a policy of total reliance on an ally, is it?
“It’s absurd, IMHO, to talk in terms of ‘they’re there so they must be a threat an therefore we must outgun them’. In the hugely unlikely event that Indonesia ever contemplated an armed attack on Australia our best defence is not hardware but the A(NZ)US alliance. ”
Teddy Rooseveldt had a great saying - ’speak softly and carry a big stick’.
The problem with military weakness is that it creates opportunities where none existed previously, and thus alters the behaviour of governments (and non state actors). The trigger for Argentina’s invasion of the Falklands was the announcement that the last UK carrier was being sold to Australia, and that the long range Vulcans would all be retired.
This was interpreted as weakness and the rest is history.
Sharp end hardware delivers deterrence, and deterrence prevents conflicts.
Take the time to read through the APA website, you might find a different perspective on these issues.
Rob, your ‘cadge off everyone else’ policy is veering too far the other way I think. We’re talking about the importance of projecting an offensively defensive level of power to be taken seriously in a rapidly growing, increasingly wealthy and geo-strategically unstable region. Leave aside the hardware debate for a moment and consider the possibility that if we’re seen only as an alliance cameo over the next few decades our national influence in relation to the whole ensemble of economic and political questions will be eroded in all of the regional forums. The Raptor isn’t just a delivery system for munitions; more importantly, it is a weapon for the projection of will, regional focus and national seriousness. That boosts our peace-keeping power; it doesn’t sidetrack it.
And you should stop pinching your acronyms from Fyodor, Joe. For Fuck’s Sakes.
…
Now the war in Lebanon is a case in point. Modern wars aren’t about razing areas and massively flattening people, else as you say the IDF would have flattened hundreds of kilometres of coastal country—or better in terms of mega-deaths, turned it into smouldering radioactive Mediterranean glass.
The likelihood of two conventional armies or air forces facing each other militarily in any of our combined lifetimes is nil, even for planning purposes. The enemies for Australian purposes are going to be non-State actors immune to massive retaliation, airstrikes, and least of all, deterrent spending.
If you go the woods today, you sure of a big surprise
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20061031-120304-2744r.htm
75. jc | October 31st, 2006 at 10:49 pm
“you think that part about China is simply classified so as not to offend them, or these whackers just idioits?”
Perhaps Defence’s own comments are most illustrative:
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jfadt/adfair/subs/sub29.pdf
Go to page 30 and start there. Comapre their evidence with the facts.
I’ll let you draw your own conclusions.
77. Rob | October 31st, 2006 at 10:57 pm
‘Who is the ‘we in the analytical community’ that you’re talking about, Carlo? And do you get paid to make decisions for the government?’
I wish I did get paid what my opponents in this debate get paid. I do funded research for entities other than Defence, yes, and it involves strategy, strategic analysis and strategic technical analysis. I do not disclose my client list.
78. Rob | October 31st, 2006 at 11:03 pm
“So we can ’simply’ outspend the fastest growing economy in the world in arms acquisition? I don’t think so. ”
You spend assymetrically on capabilities which are hard to beat, not symmetrically, otherwise you go broke.
I have never advocated a symmetrical spending strategy.
Bullshit, Laime of both fronts.
1. FFS is being used by everyone. As for stealing things, ask your buddy fyodor where he got the term, “big Mary” and started using it without my permission. You idiot.
2. Yes of course Laime, you’re quite correct, all new conflicts from 22 July 1999 will no longer be big time wars in the traditional sense under UN resolution 2446. From now on they are just going to be relief and policing efforts and we shouldn’t expect anything different. Chechnya is a case in point.
UN resolution asks that countries no longer defend themselves against wholesale wars we have known in the past.
You really are a first rate nimbus.
80. Tony Healy | October 31st, 2006 at 11:08 pm
“Re Cope India, Carlo, thanks, networking not AWACS. The point was that the American F-15s were artificially restricted compared to the Indian planes, as I understand it. Is that what happened?”
That claim was produced by opponents of the F-22 in the US and seeded into the media debate.
The claim was that by denying the F-15s AWACS they were hobbled. However, not denying them AWACS would have hobbled the Sukhois.
Ergo if you want to pee on the F-22 it is OK to hobble the Sukhois in the exercise, but not OK to fly the F-15s on a level playing field.
“And the context was that this was a political manouver to encourage US Congress to be generous in funding F-22s for the USAF. Do you know anythng about that? ”
As above. The anti-F-22 lobby in the US shares one trait with the JSF / anti-F-22 lobby in Australia - an allergy to the truth.
Chechnya is a case in point, Joe, just not yours. The Russians invaded in 1994, with massive air, logistical and technical superiority, and were thrown out on their arses after two years of butchery and chaos.
Liame,
They levelled the capital. They razed the friggen place… in their own country!!!! I’m not talking about who won and why there, am i?
Unless I’m istaken you changed the subject and began a rant about the fact that new wars …..
” Modern wars aren’t about razing areas and massively flattening people,…”
Do you remember your mother’s name?
“The US are in genuine difficulty with strategic overstretch and it is hurting their ability to maintain their strategic position, especially in the Asia-Pacific.”
Carlo, this is a commonplace as you will be well aware. The mantra of the Pentagon in the 90’s was ‘burden-sharing’ in the wake of the global drawdown of US forces after the end of the Cold War. In practical effect this means that in terms of the overall US-Oz alliance, the US expects us to look after our part of the world. That’s why the US stood off during the East Timor crisis and politely invited Australia to show what it could do. And it did. We must continue to budget against that continuing expectation by the US in order to secure its adherence to our protection under ANZUS.
But we must not have illusions about it. The US will never expect Australia to sort out the big boys in ‘our’ region, like China, or North Korea, or Thailand, or Cambodia, beyond assisting with US or UN coalitions in limited peace-keeping or anti-terrorist operations as may be required. They do expect us to